[Patents] possible patentability rules and their merits

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

Ralph Nack wrote:

> Thank you Greg, you got the point. Mr. Pilch: Please refrain from bombing
> your ideas over this mailing list.

In fact Ralph has been refraining from the exchange of ideas over this
mailing list.  He prefers to publish his views in government-ordered
studies, where they can claim authority and attention for themselves
without much need to stand up to criticism.  I might think the same way if
I was in that position.  Also, I might want texts like the following

        Patentlobbyismus und Schriftgelehrsamkeit im Namen Max Plancks
        http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/lijda/mpi/

to be censored along with most of what I write on this list.  The Max
Planck Institute is in my view an institution with a particularly shameful
record of what Gert Kolle called "naive and wilful expansion of monopoloy
power of a few players", in this case by creation and propagation of a
consistent network of fallacies under the guise of science.  See also my
criticism of the (not yet finalised) software patent study conducted by
Fraunhofer and MPI at the order of the German Ministery of Economics

        http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/bmwi-fhgmpi01/

You have also already read a report from Axel Horns on the 2001-07-10
session and some additions from me.  Mr. Nack's part of this study
provoked uniform devastating criticism both from advocates and sceptics of
software patentability.

It would therefore be a good idea for Mr. Nack to expose and discuss his
methodology and reasoning in this forum.  In any case, this forum is for
discussion, not for restraint.  And if this discussion is about a subject
where power comes into play and distorts the arguments of the actors, then
it is normal and to be expected that some participants misbehave and that
such misbehavior is pointed out.  It is in my own interest to avoid
unncecessary emotionalisation, but I can not avoid pointing out what I
believe to be unadorned factual truth.

So let's get to the subject.  I'd like an answer from any true scholar of
patent law (who is not only capable of counting court decisions but also
of putting them in relation to a variety of possible functions and aims of
the patent system, without giving preference to any particular function):

How can patentability be restricted?
What possible rules are there?
How clear are they? (citing some borderline case examples)
How adequate are they, given different teleological values such as
  - delivering of intelligent (not completely idiotic) patents
  - promotion of the interest of various kinds of software players
  - promotion of progress of science and the useful arts
  - etc (please formulate other policy goals as you wish)

Mr. Nack, would that be a good subject of discussion, or shall we stick to
discussing netiquette?

On which of those two subjects do you feel more competent?

--
Hartmut Pilch                                           http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation        http://swpat.ffii.org/
80000 signatures against software patents         http://www.noepatents.org/